World Bank

Baroness Amos: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Hilary Benn) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of a new DfID report, The UK and the World Bank 2004.
	This report describes the UK's work with the World Bank over the bank's financial year 2004 (known as FY04: July 2003 to June 2004). In line with my commitment to greater transparency on our relations with the bank, it sets out the broad positions the UK took in a number of discussions at the bank—on the bank's support to poor countries' development, its role in responding to debates on global issues such as debt and trade, and its institutional effectiveness. The report also records the UK's position on resolutions adopted by the board of governors. It will be an annual publication; the next report will cover the period July 2004 to June 2005.
	The UK believes that the World Bank is an effective development organisation, but its performance can still be improved. In FY04, the UK pressed the bank to improve performance in a number of areas, for example: ensuring that country assistance strategies focus on poverty reduction; using more poverty and social impact analysis (PSIA), and making more bank information available to the public. Since the end of FY04, we have also successfully pressed the bank to review its use of conditionality. We will report on this initiative in our next report on the UK and the World Bank.

Weapons of Mass Destruction: Review of Intelligence

Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: On 14 July 2004, in her Statement to the House (Official Report, col. 1253), my noble friend Lady Amos announced that the Government accepted the conclusions of Lord Butler's review. In my Written Statement of 15 November 2004 (Official Report, col. WS 29), I said that Sir David Omand, the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, would lead the work on implementation of those conclusions. Sir David Omand has now completed this work and I should like to report the outcome to the House.
	A considerable amount has been done in a short time by Sir David, the heads of the security and intelligence agencies and senior officials in government departments to implement the conclusions. The detail is set out in a report (Cm 6492) that the Foreign Secretary is today laying before the House. Copies will also be placed in the Library of the House. A number of key actions have already been taken:
	Secret Intelligence Service has developed new procedures, provided additional resources and revised line management arrangements to improve evaluation and to oversee the quality of intelligence reporting. Work has taken place to ensure that source descriptions in intelligence reports across the intelligence community use standardised terminology and are consistent;
	arrangements have been put in place across the community to ensure that the distribution of sensitive reporting can be extended when necessary;
	Joint Intelligence Committee processes have been reviewed and tightened up. Arrangements have been made so that in future the annual process to set the requirements and priorities for the collection and analysis of intelligence will apply to the defence intelligence staff as well as to the three statutory agencies. A confidential guide for readers of intelligence, including information on the limitations of intelligence, has been produced and distributed; and
	access to the agencies' staff counsellor has been agreed for members of the assessments staff and fully analogous arrangements have been put in place for members of the defence intelligence staff.
	Further work is in hand to improve the analytical support provided to the intelligence community following a study carried out by a senior Foreign Office official. That study has recommended and the Government have endorsed:
	the establishment of a professional head of intelligence analysis to advise in the security, defence and foreign affairs fields on analytical capability and methodology: recruitment and career management of analysts; and the development and oversight of more substantial training of analysts; and
	the expansion of the assessments staff, by about one-third. This will provide additional internal review and challenge functions for Joint Intelligence Committee assessments; resource work on countries at risk of instability; and allow increased production of regular warning papers highlighting significant threats or other issues likely to face the Government in the near to medium term in the fields of security, defence and foreign affairs. Other small increases to make the assessments staff more effective are also recommended.
	Sir David Omand's successor as Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator has been asked to give high priority to implementing these measures.
	In addition to the publication of the detailed report on the implementation of the conclusions of the Butler review, the Cabinet Office is publishing today an updated national intelligence machinery booklet. Copies of this are also being placed in the Library of the House. It is also on the Cabinet Office website at www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk. This booklet sets out the roles, responsibility and organisation of the UK intelligence community and reflects the changes made as a result of the Butler review. It also includes an unclassified version of the guide for readers of intelligence that has been circulated within government.
	Lord Butler's review has contributed greatly to the process under way to fit the UK's intelligence community for the future. The Government recognised the need to move substantially to implement its conclusions and have done so.

Corporate Manslaughter

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: I am pleased to announce the publication today of the Government's draft legislation on corporate manslaughter. In summary, this is intended to remedy a particular defect in the present law which can lead to companies escaping liability for manslaughter because no senior single individual can be shown to be personally liable. It builds on earlier work by the Law Commission in 1996 and consultation by the Government in 2000 on the law on involuntary manslaughter. No new standards or regulations will be created with the proposed new offence.
	Current laws for prosecuting companies for gross negligence manslaughter fail to operate in a sufficiently flexible way to reflect the reality of decision-making in large organisations and therefore fail to provide proper accountability or justice for victims. It is too restrictive to say that a company cannot be prosecuted for manslaughter unless a person who effectively embodies the company is also guilty of the offence. The Government are committed to reforming this area of the law and today's draft Bill marks an important step in delivering that commitment.
	Our proposals would introduce a clearer, more effective offence that would see organisations held properly to account for gross failings by their senior management that have had fatal consequences. This would continue to be an extremely serious offence, reserved for the very worst cases of corporate mismanagement leading to death, and the threshold for committing it would therefore remain at the same level of gross misconduct currently required. But the new test of senior management failure would allow courts to consider a wider picture of failure at the senior levels of an organisation, making it easier to bring prosecutions.
	The new offence would complement, not replace, other forms of accountability such as prosecutions under health and safety legislation. And it would be clearly linked to the standards required under those laws. This is not about introducing new regulatory burdens, stifling entrepreneurial activity or creating a risk-averse culture, and organisations taking a conscientious approach to their current obligations have nothing to fear. Nor is it about the individual liability of directors or others, which is not affected by the proposals. It is about ensuring that the law is effective in bringing to account, for a specific serious offence and corporately, organisations that have shown a clear disregard for the law with fatal consequences for members of their workforce or others.
	The proposals would apply to Crown bodies, such as government departments, as well as the wider public sector and industry. They create a broad level playing field between public and private sectors, applying when both are carrying our similar activities, for example, in respect of ensuring the safety of their workforce and premises and when supplying goods or services or operating commercially. But the Crown and other bodies performing public functions are not in an identical position to private industry and certain core government activities will be outside the scope of the Bill. These include key public functions such as setting and inspecting regulatory standards, issuing guidance and standards to public services or providing central procurement for public bodies. A narrow band of activities requiring specific lawful authority, such as the detention of prisoners (whether in a publicly or privately managed prison), and public policy decisions involving the allocation of public funds or competing social or political factors will also be exempt. The organisation and management of these functions involve wider questions of public policy where Parliament, public inquiries or the broader democratic process provide accountability.
	We welcome the process of scrutiny and consultation that will follow publication of this draft Bill. Consultation will run until 17 June and we welcome comments from across the board: industry, unions and other stakeholders. The draft Bill is also being published for parliamentary pre-legislative scrutiny and we look forward to receiving the report that will follow that process.
	Copies of the draft Bill have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The draft legislation is also available on the Home Office website at www.homeoffice.gov.uk.

Inspectorate for Justice and Community Safety

Baroness Scotland of Asthal: Today the Government will publish their report Establishing an Inspectorate for Justice and Community Safety. Copies of the report have been placed in the Libraries of the House.
	The proposals for consultation outlined in the report aim to introduce root and branch reform, changing the structure of inspection in the criminal justice system and enhancing the capacity for leadership and decision-making.
	Independent inspection in the criminal justice system plays an important role in improving services and holding organisations to account for their performance. In recent years every criminal justice agency has undergone reform to deliver improvements to services; it is essential that the inspection regime is reformed to support these changes.
	The five justice inspectorates have done an excellent job in driving up performance. Therefore the Government propose to build on the current base of expertise and create an inspectorate for justice and community safety that continues the rigorous independent inspection of criminal justice agencies, including the treatment and conditions of those in custody, while broadening this to inspect across organisational boundaries to deliver a more joined-up inspection system. An inspection regime that inspects the criminal justice process from end to end supports the front line by reducing unnecessary burden and bureaucracy and examines how the system can better deliver for those who come into contact with it.
	The Government welcome views on the precise design of the new inspectorate before 15 June 2005.

High Hedges

Lord Rooker: My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I am today announcing that we will be commencing the remainder of Part 8 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 in England on 1 June. From this date, local authorities will be able to deal with complaints about high hedges that are having an adverse effect on a neighbour's amenity.
	Alongside the commencement order, we have laid regulations specifying the grounds on which appeals can be brought against local authority decisions under the legislation, and setting out how such appeals will be handled. The appeals procedure has been streamlined in the light of responses to the public consultation held last year.
	Consultation comments have also led us to decide that we should not exercise our power to set a ceiling on what local authorities can charge for dealing with high hedges complaints. Section 68 of the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 specifies that any such fee must be paid by the complainant. As a result of our decision, local authorities in England will be free to decide whether, and at what level, it is appropriate to charge for this service, taking account of local circumstances and local taxpayers' wishes. Should they so wish, authorities may provide this service for free, or charge different amounts to different groups of people. This is in line with the Government's general policy of allowing such decisions to be made at the local level.
	We have published a full regulatory impact assessment on implementing the high hedges legislation. It includes an estimate of what it might cost a local authority, on average, to deal with a high hedge complaint. It also contains, as an annexe, a summary of the consultation responses.
	To support local authorities as they prepare to take on this new responsibility, we will shortly publish detailed guidance on administering complaints and enforcing any action that hedge owners may be required to take to remedy the problems caused by the hedge. We also plan to hold regional workshops during May to provide training for local authority officers.
	For the public, we are publishing two free explanatory leaflets. Over the Garden Hedge is a revision of the previous leaflet of this name and offers advice on how people can settle these disputes for themselves. Negotiation is a necessary precursor to submitting a formal complaint to a local authority. The authority can reject a complaint if it considers that the complainant has not done everything they reasonably could to settle the matter themselves. The second leaflet High Hedges: Complaining to the Council explains what complaints local authorities can consider and how they will deal with them.
	Copies of the regulatory impact assessment and both leaflets will be placed in the Libraries of both Houses and have been published on the website of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister at www.odpm.gov.uk. The guidance for local authorities High Hedges Complaints: Prevention and Cure will similarly be deposited in House Libraries and published on the web as soon as it is available.

Digital Television Project

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Culture Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today published the report of the digital television project which sets out advice to the Government on the process of digital switchover. The report is the culmination of nearly three years' work by broadcasters, regulators and industry working with the Government and other stakeholders. The report sets out a detailed strategy for achieving digital switchover and will help to inform government decisions about how and when to proceed with digital switchover.
	There are still important questions that need to be resolved before we can announce the final timetable for switchover. We are currently working with the BBC to assess the scope of assistance schemes to help vulnerable consumers through switchover. We will only confirm the timetable once all remaining issues relating to digital switchover are resolved and we are satisfied that the interests of consumers, especially the most vulnerable, are well protected.
	Copies of the report of the digital television project have been placed in the Library.

OGCbuying.solutions: Key Performance Targets 2005–06

Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My right honourable friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (Mr Paul Boateng) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	I have today set the following performance targets for OGCbuying.solutions for 2005–06.
	Savings
	The agency will facilitate at least £400 million value for money improvements for the public sector in 2005–06.
	Customer Satisfaction
	The agency will continue to achieve levels of customer satisfaction above 90 per cent as a headline figure and will demonstrate continuing improvements in customer satisfaction through other measures.
	RoCE
	The agency will make a return on capital employed of 6.5 per cent.
	Efficiency
	The agency will reduce by 5 per cent the ratio of internal costs over value for money improvements with the outturn for the same ratio in 2004–05 (excluding any new business e.g. efficiency review initiatives).

Student Finance and Loans

Lord Filkin: My honourable friend the Minister of State for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education (Dr Kim Howells) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	The regulatory impact assessment that was published alongside the Higher Education Act 2004 contained estimates of the fee income for the HE sector and the costs of student loans and grants. These estimates were based on two scenarios for the pattern of fee charging by higher education providers: 75 per cent of students charged £3,000 and 25 per cent charged £1,200; and 50 per cent charging £3,000 and 50 per cent charging £1,200. The figures below update that analysis on the basis of findings from the Office for Fair Access that 91 per cent of higher education providers are likely to charge £3,000. The figures below also update the analysis to take account of the new £2,700 grant, replacing the previous £1,500 HE grant and £1,200 fee remission grant; they also update the analysis to put it all on a 2006-07 student number basis.
	Fee Income and Student Support Forecasts
	
		Table 1: Fee income for higher education providers
		
			  
			 Fee Income from standard fee (based on 2006–07 standard fee of £1,200) £950 million 
			 Additional income from variable fees (based on 91 per cent of universities charging full £3,000 fee) £1,350 million 
			 Total £2,300 million 
		
	
	
		Table 2: Cost of Student Support
		
			  Cost 
			 New grant of £2,700 £890 million 
			 Maintenance loans £740 million 
			 Fee loans £830 million 
		
	
	Notes:
	1 All costs are in steady state 2006-07 terms.
	2. Fee loan forecasts are based on the assumption that 9 per cent of students are charged £2,000 and 91 per cent charged £3,000, so the average fee for new students will be £2,910. We are also assuming 80 per cent take-up of fee deferral.
	3. The maintenance loan forecasts assume 82 per cent take-up.
	4. The forecasts are based on a RAB charge for maintenance loans of 29 per cent and for fee loans of 42 per cent, under 3.5 per cent discount rate.
	5. Fee income forecasts have been rounded to the nearest £50 million. All other figures have been rounded to the nearest £10 million.
	6. Forecasts are based on setting a grant threshold so that 30 per cent of students receive the full grant.
	7. The combined grant costs represent an extra £440 million over and above expenditure on the £1,200 fee remission grant as it would have been.
	8. Adopting the £2,700 grant has the effect of moving costs from maintenance loans to fee loans, because the £1,200 fee remission grant would have substituted for fee loans whereas some of the £2,700 grant substitutes for maintenance loan. The level of the substitution rate will be set to ensure overall cost neutrality.

NHS Foundation Trusts: Prudential Borrowing Code

Lord Warner: My right honourable friend the Minister of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.
	Section 12 of the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Act 2003 requires Monitor (the statutory name of which is the Independent Regulator of NHS Foundation Trusts) to make a prudential borrowing code for determining the limit on the total amount of borrowing by NHS foundation trusts.
	In accordance with Section 12(4) of the Act, the executive chairman of Monitor has today published the code. Copies are available in the Library.

Rural Strategy 2004: Integrated Agency

Lord Whitty: My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and I are pleased to announce, as a further step in delivering the radical reforms set out in the Government's rural strategy 2004, that the integrated agency will be called Natural England. The establishment of this new organisation will also contribute to the rural priorities set out in Defra's five-year strategy published last December.
	The new agency will bring together English Nature and parts of the Countryside Agency and Rural Development Service into a single, streamlined body. Its role is to champion integrated resource management, nature conservation, biodiversity, landscape, access and recreation.
	The organisation will be formally established following adoption of the Natural Environment and Rural Communities Bill, published in draft on 10 February for pre-legislative scrutiny, as soon as parliamentary time allows. In the mean time, to begin delivering the benefits of an integrated approach, the three constituent bodies will start working as a confederation of partners from 1 April 2005 with a common vision and purpose.
	Further information on the new agency and on other ongoing reforms to rural delivery is available on the Defra website at www.defra.gov.uk/rural/ruraldelivery.